Virginity for Sale and the Upskirt Amendment

November 8, 2013

Image courtesy of SiberianTimes.com.

I've had sex with a virgin. Actually I have had sex with two virgins. And while I enjoyed both those encounters (and the subsequent relationships), I didn't find them so mind-blowing as to be worth about $27,000. But that's me. There are obviously other men out there who disagree with me and 18-year-old Shatuniha is surely grateful for them.

Siberian babe Shatuniha stated on a Russian auction website that "I am in urgent need of money, so I am selling the most precious thing I possess. I am ready to meet up soon, even as soon as tomorrow, and I am ready to have my virginity verified. I can come to a hotel at Predmostnaya Square with a document confirming my virginity, and with a person who will take the cash and leave, so that I am not fooled... This person will take away the money, but I will stay... The money should be cash only."

She started the bidding on October 30, 2013, at 800,000 rubles (about $24,600) and within a day she had a winning bid of 900,000 rubles (about $27,000) from some dude whose name was given as Evgeniy Volnov. Oh, and in case you were wondering, police in Krasnoyarsk, Russia, where the girl lives, told the Siberian Times that she broke no laws.

And speaking of virgins, here is a funny commercial for Virgin Atlantic:

We all know that the First Amendment protects free speech. But did you also know that it protects the rights of pervy dudes to take upskirt photos of unsuspecting ladies? Well, at least that is what a guy in Andover, Massachusetts, is claiming.

Michael Robertson was arrested for trying to take cellphone pictures up chicks' dresses on Boston's green-line subway back in August 2010. But Robertson believes that he did nothing wrong. He argues that women in skirts are taking a chance when riding the train since there is no guarantee of privacy.

The guy's lawyer, Michelle Menken, goes so far as to say that laws regarding the taking of unwanted photos of women are outdated and actually are protected under the first amendment. That might be true, but to me it sounds like the same outdated "right to bear arms" argument.

When the second amendment was written, the "arms" in question were single-shot muskets and the like and not the multi-shot guns and automatic weapons of today. The same is true with camera technology. In fact, the first partially successful photographic image was made in approximately 1816 - almost 30 years after the adoption of the constitution. There also weren't any skirts short enough to see up.